Agnosticism is the only non-faith.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer You can prove a negative just as well as a positive. Square circles do not exist because they would be self-contradictory.

So it can be proven that god does not exist just as well as it can be proven that god does exist?

Fabulous.

[Zhavric]

Rick has wrapped up the thread nicely, but not to put too fine a point on it,.. Kam, you need to use common sense here. As I've stated before, it's dishonest to accuse atheists of the same faith theists use because a dictionary technicality. It's like you're trying to convince us that Basketball & Soccer are the same sport because they both involve using a ball... there's a little more to it than that...

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood You just don't get it. RickSp said it best, "You are asking for evidence of no evidence. This is absurd.".

Not according to logic. Outright denial of a concept because of lack of evidence is ad ignorantium.

You're entitled to your belief. Just don't expect it to be validated as a non-faith.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Now, will you cite proof that no gods exist or concede that there's no proof either way?

That's like asking for proof that no alternative medicine can exist. You're trying to turn a variable into an infinity of possibilities which makes it irrelevant. I'll repeat, someone that does not believe in alternative medicine would need to have papers and arguments ready to disprove every single yet-to-be-thought-up alternative medicine. That's ludicrous and just plain retarded.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 So it can be proven that god does not exist just as well as it can be proven that god does exist? Fabulous.

Nope, I didn't say that.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric Rick has wrapped up the thread nicely, but not to put too fine a point on it,.. Kam, you need to use common sense here. As I've stated before, it's dishonest to accuse atheists of the same faith theists use because a dictionary technicality. It's like you're trying to convince us that Basketball & Soccer are the same sport because they both involve using a ball... there's a little more to it than that...

No. Actually it's quite different.

What I'm doing is comparable to defending the point that "both basketball and soccer involve a ball".

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Nope, I didn't say that.

Well, you said that a negative can be proved just as much as a positive.

So, the fact that "no god exists" is a claim that is negative means nothing. You should be able to defend it, or deem it as a faith.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer That's like asking for proof that no alternative medicine can exist...

No, it's not like that at all. We have enough knowledge to make an accurate hypothesis. Such is not the case for divine existence.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Well, you said that a negative can be proved just as much as a positive. So, the fact that "no god exists" is a claim that is negative means nothing. You should be able to defend it, or deem it as a faith.

What? I defended it in the very post you quoted. O.o What's with you?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Compelling. Tell me, are you a fool for calling the existence of negative proofs "absurd"? Interestingly, the claim ""A supernatural force does not exist, for I have not seen proof that something supernatural does exist." is listed as a fallacious usage of negative proofs. The argument you are persuing is an example used to conceptualize a fallacy. That's a hint that you should persue a different one.

This would be fallacious if it wasn't using the word "supernatural". Supernatural contradicts existing proven claims and is thus false until proven true.

Regardless, it doesn't involve faith.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer What? I defended it in the very post you quoted. O.o What's with you?

Incorrect. 100% of your defence is invested in logical fallacies, which I conveniently pointed out for you.

I should have clarified that, you should be able to defend it adequately if it isn't a faith.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric This would be fallacious if it wasn't using the word "supernatural". Supernatural contradicts existing proven claims and is thus false until proven true.

Insert "god" for supernatural. The statement holds true, unless you can somehow prove that the existence of a god is less likely than non-existence.

Regardless, it doesn't involve faith.

You should know that I require proof, by now.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, it's not like that at all. We have enough knowledge to make an accurate hypothesis. Such is not the case for divine existence.

[Kame, please understand what an example is.. this is getting annoying]

Actually, wrong again. We don't know everything there is to know about medicine, hence we are still searching for cures. If any medication or therapy is discovered before mainstream science accepts it, especially if it seems absurd, then it is an alternative medicine. Someone who does not believe in alternative medicine does not have to have arguments, papers, and research ready to disprove any possible alternative medicine you could randomly make up just as an atheist does not have to have arguments, papers, and research ready to disprove and possible god or gods you could randomly make up.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Incorrect. 100% of your defence is invested in logical fallacies, which I conveniently pointed out for you. I should have clarified that, you should be able to defend it adequately if it isn't a faith.

The nonexistence of logical contradictions, dear, is not a logical fallacy. I'm really surprised you didn't know that.. :[

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer [Kame, please understand what an example is.. this is getting annoying]

Ok, I'll try to be more specific in pointing out the inconsistencies.

Actually, wrong again. We don't know everything there is to know about medicine, hence we are still searching for cures. If any medication or therapy is discovered before mainstream science accepts it, especially if it seems absurd, then it is an alternative medicine. Someone who does not believe in alternative medicine does not have to have arguments, papers, and research ready to disprove any possible alternative medicine you could randomly make up just as an atheist does not have to have arguments, papers, and research ready to disprove and possible god or gods you could randomly make up.

Alternative medicines could cost lives. Different rules, my friend.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Insert "god" for supernatural. The statement holds true, unless you can somehow prove that the existence of a god is less likely than non-existence.

Insert god for supernatural? Gods are by definition supernatural. How is this even a rebuttal to his post?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer The nonexistence of logical contradictions, dear, is not a logical fallacy. I'm really surprised you didn't know that.. :[

To propose a lack of logical contradictions as evidence is ad ignorantium.

You were almost there.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Alternative medicines could cost lives. Different rules, my friend.

lol, once again.. learn what an example is. Religion could cost lives too, as irrelevant as that is. I'm sorry Kame, but if you don't have any response just don't reply..

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Insert god for supernatural? Gods are by definition supernatural. How is this even a rebuttal to his post?

Hmm, perhaps you can find me where it says "supernatural" in the first definition of "god".

I keep looking, and I just can't find it.




And it was a rebuttal to his refutation that his argument is entailed in an example of a fallacious argument by Wikipedia.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No. Actually it's quite different. What I'm doing is comparable to defending the point that "both basketball and soccer involve a ball".

Oy... Kam. Your position is untenable. No one is buying that the righteous zealotry of a pentacostal is comparable with the cool logic of a strong atheist. It's ridiculous. The only stance that doesn't take faith is atheism because atheism is the rejection of theism which is where all the faith comes from. Since agnosticism requires a belief that theism has a 50% chance of being correct, it is agnosticism which requires faith.

Not atheism.

Your argument that "healthy" is just a type of disease has failed.